Deep thoughts: Debian docs seem to say that apt-get is best for significant upgrades.
Why? But that aptitude is best for daily package management. Why? So, if apt-get is for non-trivial upgrades, then why not for daily use? And if aptitude is preferred for daily, use, why not for serious upgrades? Not efficient to have multiple choices. Debian, please choose one and deprecate the others. I patiently await your hate mail. On Wed, Aug 1, 2018, 03:53 Joe <j...@jretrading.com> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2018 15:14:57 +1200 > Ben Caradoc-Davies <b...@transient.nz> wrote: > > > On 01/08/18 11:11, Default User wrote: > > > > > synaptic? No love for synaptic? > > > > > Would Debian please just settle on one, and stick with it? > > > > They do different things at different levels and seem to play nicely > > together. > > > > Indeed. I use apt-get, aptitude, synaptic and occasionally dpkg, as the > purpose requires. > > If I have time, in the situation described in this thread I use > synaptic to install whatever isn't held up. I just pick likely-looking > packages and install them, backing off if I get a list of removals. > Aptitude interactive can do exactly the same, but I'm more comfortable > with synaptic. > > I do actually use upgrade-system for routine upgrades, and switch to > synaptic when necessary. On my server, I don't have synaptic, but > being stable, I don't ever see this problem, either. For a simple > installation of a package whose name I know, I use aptitude. For > upgrading an unstable that hasn't been upgraded for a few months, I'd > use apt-get, as aptitude clogs up when presented with hundreds of > packages to sort out dependencies for. For a broken package that is > beyond the abilities of the apt tools, dpkg is less intelligent and > usually brutal enough to remove it. Horses for courses... > > -- > Joe > >
